| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that the forums aren't on fire anymore (for however long that may be), I thought i'd drop the results of my groups run of Doomsday Dawn Ch1: The Lost Star.
Before we begin here's a previous summary of my own likes/dislikes/etc for the system:
1. action economy: while some reactions shouldn't be reactions and some things have become super clunky in the transition (which i hope get ironed out over the course of this playtest), by and large it's FAR simpler to introduce players to, and makes combat scoot along much faster than previous.
2. more granular pass/fail states: while the number squish/DC balancing (see dislikes) makes actually getting the +10 for a critical success intensely difficult for players, it allows for FAR more space when designing and balancing effects like spells or powers.
3. spellcasting (for the wizard at least): auto-heightened spells and cantrips are a solid idea, and the ability to invest more or less actions into casting to greater/lesser effect makes spellcasting an interesting tactical choice every turn.
4. ancestries (and half-ancestry opportunity): while races need to be polished up (and could stand to be a great deal more frontloaded on the heritage side, as currently they're just near-identical grey blobs for half their career), but what actually excites me are the half-ancestries and the potential for more exotic and more general-access/non-human ones that it opens the door for (i believe mark seifter made a comment to that effect in the ancestry article). the sheer number of interesting character ideas that allows for (aasimar-elves, oread-dwarves, half-elf-orcs, and on and on) is mindboggling! though this would need to move to the "want to like/needs improving" section if that potential was wasted.
what I really want to like but need major improving:
1. class feats: i like that every class (in theory) now has a unique "thing" for their class like the rage powers, rogue talents, arcanist exploits, etc of PF1e. and the intent seems tob e to "build your own class". However, as they are, class feats are uninspired and come at direct cost to the other classes--with many class feats being 1e general feats that have been segregated (and reprinted with a different name when more than one class gets it) for no apparent reason, rather than keeping those general feats as just that, and giving the class a mechanically solid and flavorful ability instead (like the rage powers of 1e)--something that makes that class able to do something unique with their options or to expand those options further, rather than simply making them more competent at a single chosen approach.
that many classes are outright lacking facets of their iconic design (smite evil for paladins, wildshape on druids, etc) and have to purchase those later to even try to play that type of character is just sad to see, especially with how late archetypes and multiclassing is allowed (minimum 4th level before you're able to play even the most basic version of the character you sat down to create)
one should be excited to choose the fighter class because they're especially good with, or can do something wholly unique with two-weapon fighting (or whatever other combat style you may want), not because they're the only one allowed to be competent at it in the first place.
2. skill feats: as with class feats, they lack interesting options, and are largely comprised of actions that one could previously do at anytime in 1e, just gated off behind a feat now. skill feats should allow one to go above and beyond a skill's usual limitations (and become more interesting the greater the proficiency), not simply allowing older uses of the skill. where's the master/legendary stealth feats to be treated as under the effects of 'blur' or even 'invisibility' (on a certain DC success, with modifiers for light level or cover) or somesuch? or the ability to hide in plain sight at all (as that appears to be completely gone from the system, despite being in plain sight being an auto-fail condition)?
one should be excited to choose a skill feat because it's a cool action beyond the normal skill's scope or suits their character idea very well, not because it allows them to actually use the skill as intended.
3. proficiency: i think many of the bonuses for gear level--conveniently on the same track!--should be made part of the character's proficiency level instead (such as a weapon's scaling dice and armor's reduction of ACP and speed penalties), the idea of proficiency levels is an interesting one. however i feel that improving one's proficiency has very little payoff currently: you're simply +1 'better' than the rank previous and gain access to fairly uninteresting proficiency-locked feat choices that you have precious few opportunities to try out.
4. signature skills: the idea that having a set of skills that your character is particularly, well, skilled at is a good one, but as it stands this is far too limiting in most cases, and you get very little for doing so (see "number squish" in dislikes). a free-floating extra signature skill or two would certainly go a long way towards more diverse characters.
things i don't like (and why!):
1. resonance: needlessly limiting across the entire system (especially for the poor alchemist), despite appearing to be made to remedy a small PFS problem (abusing cheap healing items). The single-use consumables costing points is particularly harmful. I see no reason why this should be in the system at all.
2. unclear class direction/direction is unsupported by rules: things like the paladin being incentivized to allow his allies to be hit (otherwise they cannot use a core pillar of the class). the sorcerer (the "flexible" arcane caster) having the least flexible spells, being forced to learn the same spells repeatedly to keep them up-to-date and being forced to wait for ingame downtime to retrain their now-obsolete previous version to something else. the rogue being unable to sneak attack an enemy when sneaking and attacking (unless they're a goblin, of all things!). the ranger gaining the ability to make traps and snares for free (at a penalty) at the same level that spellcasters gain 9th-level spells.
3. number squish: with proficiencies being such a high initial jump but slow curve afterwards, and feats and items having so little impact, it feels like we're left with a system where it's tough to fail (yay!) but hard to excel, which harms a great many character designs and ideas.
4. DC rebalance: with many DCs appear to be set to be a challenge as you level, most checks and saves end up being a 40-50% chance to succeed on average, or ~65% to succeed if you're completely specialized in it. this makes actually getting to that +10 above DC threshold for a critical exceedingly rare even for the most specialized of characters, and leads to even what characters dedicate time and resources toward being good at still being wildly unreliable--even before other rules limitations that come into effect, such as with stealth's many chances to fail (each monster gets their own roll) and direct auto-fail situations (you instantly fail if you dont have cover at any point). this leads one to wonder, why try to be good at anything, if it only comes down to a slightly better coinflip in the end?
5. the caster/martial disparity: yes, i said the magic words! i'm sure some will completely disregard my post for bringing this up, but it needs addressing: every single class gets roughly the same amount of class features, class feats, skill feats, and general feats to help build their character in the direction they like, and then casters get spellcasting (multiple powerful, thought-provoking options) on top of that. non-caster classes should get something that doesn't cost feats or proficiencies of around equivalent value, be it stronger class features on average, or more interesting and flexible class feat selections, or some equivalent set of actions that they can do instead (DreamScarredPress's martial stances and maneuvers from "Path of War" was one solution: allowing martials abilities to target various saves, inflict different status effects normally impossible, smooth out the clunkier actual maneuvers like disarm or feint, and more. Though I don't think it is the only way to solve the problem, it was a solid attempt). I repeat, whatever the solution may be, it cannot, must not require a tax, because the entire point is to give them something "on top" to even things out in comparison (and martials don't have a feat advantage with which to pay those taxes anymore).
the point to this statement isn't that we should hammer down casters, it's to elevate non-casters to a rough ballpark of similar flexibility and narrative impact.
- - - - - - - - - -
things that came up during from my group's "session zero" and subsequent playtest session on the 25th (in no particular order):
-races were met with complaints all around, generally along the lines of "why am i not a level 1 elf (in PF1) until level 10+ (in PF2)?".
-the lack of a general feat at 1st level makes trying to branch out a character's design, even something as minor as using a unique weapon, VERY difficult (the alchemist had to change her entire race and backstory to actually use the weapon she wanted, since it required human to get the feat to wield it). consider granting a general feat at level 1 for more unique character options at start.
-backgrounds like nomad grant the assurance feat for survival, but do not grant training in survival (which means you dont meet the prerequisites for the feat).
the flipside of this is that if these also grant the skill training for the feat, then these backgrounds are generally flat better than others, as they grant a feat and two skill trainings (the relevant feat skill and their specific lore)
-there doesn't appear to be much of a difference between Agile and Backswing weapons (one lowers multi attack penalty, the other lowers multi attack penalty only when you miss, which is plain inferior).
-notable lack of beginner kits for items (dramatically slows character creation)
-alchemist lacks poison use, making much of their craftable list entirely useless to them.
-resonance on consumables elicited several remarks as to how dumb it was to get to drink 1 healing potion a day (especially in parties without a dedicated healer cleric).
-bags, sacks, and satchels' weights in bulk should be labeled more specifically (that they are negligible rather than weightless, and upgrade to light bulk when in stacks of 5+ or when stowed, etc), and more readily explain what exactly Stowed means.
-giant totem gives increased size for weapons, doesn't immediately point to what this actually MEANS (most people expect using a weapon twice the size to have quite the effect), and aside from weigh more in bulk and inflicting the sluggish 1 debuff on the wielder, there is pitifully little effect. after having found the sized weapon text (that is mentioned once as a throwaway line in the barbarian text and then nowhere else in the book), both i and my players were thoroughly disappointed that wielding a ~14-foot long greatsword amounted to +2 damage, only while raging, and with several other penalties to deal with as well.
-many actions shouldn't be actions: that it's separate actions to change hands, grab an item, and use an item is rough for a two-handed wielder, or an alchemist having to grab an item, throw an item, grab an item with their incredibly poor list of consumable options (which dont scale well--if at all) makes them feel especially underwhelming.
-resting with a constitution modifier of 0 or less currently means you either recover no hp during downtime, or are actively dying during downtime. consider adding 1 hit point minimum recovered to that formula.
-on character creation: stats feel very homogenous. every barbarian's stats will be identical, all alchemists will be identical, and so on. while it allows for a sort of "effectiveness floor", it feels incredibly bland for the players.
-(from the alchemist and barbarian players) skills feel almost too "rolled together"--perception seems to be almost half of the things you roll for (like appraising an item's value, sense motive, etc. all appear to be part of it, or the most appropriate for it, despite it no longer being a skill).
-many skills feel very inflexible, especially with the smaller list, making doing things not specifically listed rather hard to do or hard to identify HOW to do (such as using mercantile lore or diplomacy to attempt to haggle or gauge whether they're being ripped off).
-the dying rules were both confusing and came up often (with the druid hitting the floor twice and the alchemist hitting the floor once), with how overtuned the enemies are. however, this playtest occurred before the dying errata was released, so this one should be taken with a grain of salt.
-related to the above: monsters are FAR overtuned compared to the players. they easily hit 65+% of the time (far better odds than the players get, even optimized), and even their iteratives have a good chance to land. for reference, the boss is the one who took the alchemist out of the fight, doing so in ONE hit in the opening round (before sneak attack dice), due to how high his to-hit/effective crit chance was. this did not please the alchemist player, having to effectively sit out the climactic fight. it didn't make me feel to great either.
-our druid player simply was not allowed to play one of the core, most basic aspects of his class' identity: wild shape. you don't ACTUALLY get wild shape, the real one, until 4th level--far beyond the length of this adventure, and would take several months of later questing, as we all have lives and jobs and can only game once every weekend (though more often than not it ends up being bi-weekly). the lost star itself has very little opportunity to make use of the vermin form ability as well, leaving him as a simply worse melee combatant for the most part.
-related to points above: our alchemist player ended the adventure vowing never to play the class again, as many of her turns came down to a choice of damaging her allies to deal minor damage to an enemy, or not damage her allies and deal one (1) whole point of damage via splash. and she only gets to "attack" ten times a day if she spent 100% of her resources letting her do so (meaning, no healing potions, no utility items, nothing). paired with the nightmare of inconvenient action costs, the entire experience of playing the class was unpleasant from start to finish.
this is unacceptable.
-our monk and barbarian player had a decent time of it, being able to kill most minions in a single hit--provided they actually hit the enemy.
the monk had to pull medic duty for all three of the party knockouts, as he was the only one who had access to medicine (going out of his way to take it) and had the foresight to purchase a kit for it. the alchemist wanted to actually play her class, rather than being stuck as a healbot, and was largely unable to help on the healing front (or in any utility) due to the harsh RP limitations of the class.
-the party wizard (the final of our band) managed well, staying in the back and using all of one 1st-level spell the entire adventure. he felt that using the 1st-level spells on simple goblins was a waste, given how few he had to use in a day, and the boss only survived for two rounds between a shocking grasp, raging giant totem barbarian, and monk, so he didnt really get the opportunity to do anything all that impressive.
-as a rather humorous side note: this adventure was definitely not meant with evil atheists in mind (though there were only two evil-aligned members), as the party completely avoided the quasit fight, accidentally releasing them when they attempted to have the idol appraised for sale after the adventure concluded! plenty of laughs around the table when i explained what happened.
they also completed the adventure without interacting with pharasma subplot at all (as none of our party had chosen to spend their precious few skills on religion, and we lacked the apparently mandatory healbot cleric PF2's balance seems to expect), outside of finding the vision at the end rather curious.
-my personal takeaway after the adventure is that (aside from my comments at the beginning) there's far too long of a lag time to actually play the character you want--you're not "really" your race until level 8-12, and you're not "really" your class/multiclass/archetype until 4+. it makes the entire process of early levels and character creation feel boring, especially with your character at their very best being worse in almost every field compared to an average monster of their level.
which to me sounds like a decent starting point: consider condensing the earlier levels' features into the start and then working up from there.
-
all in all: the group as a whole were either unimpressed at best or actively made to dislike the system over the course of play at worst, and we fairly quickly reached a consensus once the adventure was done that until things were made more impressive (particularly for the poor alchemist) and overall jank was reduced, they're not really interested in continuing with the system, and i have no plans to subject them to it further.
we'll be moving back to 1st edition pathfinder in the meantime (using the revised action economy rules from unchained, as that system at least went over particularly well, and DSP's path of war content to help bring martials up to par), and i hope this system improves enough to be worth taking a second look at some point.
as it is, if we were to pick the system back up, it would be at a bare minimum of level 4, since that's when many classes appear to actually become the classes they're advertised as (druids can properly wildshape, alchemists can get int to splash and not harm their allies with their core ability, and now have a general feat for the apparently mandatory resonance general feat to function, and so on), multiclassing/archetypes are actually allowed to occur by then (for some modicum of unique character design), and classes appear to be largely cookie cutter copies of each other until then.
|
Now that the forums aren't on fire anymore (for however long that may be), I thought i'd drop the results of my groups run of Doomsday Dawn Ch1: The Lost Star.
Before we begin here's a previous summary of my own likes/dislikes/etc for the system: ** spoiler omitted **...
I would hope those who are unhappy continue to follow the changes made to the system and try again. Paizo has already issued 5-6 pages of rule changes based exclusively on feedback from the playtest like yours.
It's also important for us as playtesters to get out of our headspace of PF1; it's incredibly difficult to do so. PF1 is so innate to me I found it quite difficult to wrap my brain around the proficiency system, but taking a breath and taking some time to read the rules, the boards, and playtest each part will allow Paizo to see what we want. If we stop, they won't know.
We should also realize the Playtest rulebook is sort of a barebones thing; they intentionally left lots of options out in order to test the mechanics of the system with base flavors.
Is it perfect? No way. But stopping and not offering great feedback like you've already done certainly won't help make it better!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where AndIMustMask is coming from, though. If your problem is "races and classes are too bland at early levels" or "Alchemists are a mess", neither of those are things that the errata has addressed at all yet.
the rogue being unable to sneak attack an enemy when sneaking and attacking (unless they're a goblin, of all things!)... direct auto-fail situations (you instantly fail if you dont have cover at any point).
This was changed in errata. You have to end your sneak action with cover/concealment, but in-between you can now lose cover.
backgrounds like nomad grant the assurance feat for survival, but do not grant training in survival (which means you dont meet the prerequisites for the feat).
This was also addressed, you don't need to meet the prerequisites of your background feat.
Good feedback though, really legitimate concerns raised.
If you do feel like continuing playtesting, the next chapter of Doomsday Dawn has new PCs that are built at level 4.
Now that the forums aren't on fire anymore (for however long that may be), I thought i'd drop the results of my groups run of Doomsday Dawn Ch1: The Lost Star.
Before we begin here's a previous summary of my own likes/dislikes/etc for the system: ** spoiler omitted **...
I would hope those who are unhappy continue to follow the changes made to the system and try again. Paizo has already issued 5-6 pages of rule changes based exclusively on feedback from the playtest like yours.
It's also important for us as playtesters to get out of our headspace of PF1; it's incredibly difficult to do so. PF1 is so innate to me I found it quite difficult to wrap my brain around the proficiency system, but taking a breath and taking some time to read the rules, the boards, and playtest each part will allow Paizo to see what we want. If we stop, they won't know.
We should also realize the Playtest rulebook is sort of a barebones thing; they intentionally left lots of options out in order to test the mechanics of the system with base flavors.
Is it perfect? No way. But stopping and not offering great feedback like you've already done certainly won't help make it better!
i certainly do hope it receives that feedback, but again, i can't in good conscience spend our precious little game time on something my group and i dont really enjoy. especially if we're perpetually going to miss the playtest surveys--which paizo has said they're pulling most of their actual data and feedback from, vocal forum minorities and all that--we all wouldn't be able to "meaningfully" contribute in paizo's eyes towards actually improving the game.
i've spent the last few weeks (when the forums are up) talking on the problems of the power and feel for the game--that players aren't heroic or legendary (and the mechanics actively prohibit such things, rather than enable them): sure, you can fight a boring statblock shaped like a dragon, but there's no fantasy to anything. you are always a small boring speck in what could be a big magical world, but you never get to actually do anything legendary. of all the heroic stories and epics we've seen and read over the years, adn the only one that's even slightly allowed to be brought to life at the table is Merlin (well, you USED to, but now all the wizard's utility/narrative impact spells have been nerfed/made uncommon, so now everyone feels terrible and boring).
I totally hope that someone somewhere at paizo has taken notice and taken it to heart, but i heavily doubt it.
if it improves meaningfully (one way or the other) we'll give it another shot and see from there, but in the meantime i dont have infinite time to devote to this system and say "it's still in playtest, the devs might maybe change their mind from one dude on the forums!" and on and on to my players. they deserve better than that.
the rogue being unable to sneak attack an enemy when sneaking and attacking (unless they're a goblin, of all things!)... direct auto-fail situations (you instantly fail if you dont have cover at any point).
This was changed in errata. You have to end your sneak action with cover/concealment, but in-between you can now lose cover.
backgrounds like nomad grant the assurance feat for survival, but do not grant training in survival (which means you dont meet the prerequisites for the feat).This was also addressed, you don't need to meet the prerequisites of your background feat.
Good feedback though, really legitimate concerns raised.
If you do feel like continuing playtesting, the next chapter of Doomsday Dawn has new PCs that are built at level 4.
yeah, the first spoiler comment was from some weeks ago, before the errata update, so some bits of it should be taken with a spoon of salt.
I'll point out that prerequisites for Background skill feats explicitly do not need to be met. (And indeed, I had proceeded assuming this wasn't the case.)
I'm not sure what you mean about 'poison use' for the alchemist, given no class needs to have that anymore.
"How dumb it is to get to drink 1 potion a day": I assume your group consistently dumps Cha?
Resting with a Con mod of 0: "After your rest, you regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1) times your level" is already in the book.
Interesting thing I see constantly coming up: Why is it generally assumed that alchemists should be using bombs every single action? Why does it seem to be generally expected that PF1 alchemists go from ~5 bombs to infinite (and also should have complete splash control)?
I know dropping a hand from a two-handed weapon was mentioned consistently as "part of whatever other action you're taking" beforehand, so it should only be two actions. Granted they've clarified it since then.
|
|
Now that the forums aren't on fire anymore (for however long that may be), I thought i'd drop the results of my groups run of Doomsday Dawn Ch1: The Lost Star.
Before we begin here's a previous summary of my own likes/dislikes/etc for the system: ** spoiler omitted **...
My group had the same feelings, all but 1 of us has given up with the playtest. We just felt the design direction Paizo is going doesn't line up with how we like to play RPGs.
I'm still looking at the erratas they are putting out, and the newer death system is better.However they would have change the core of the new system for us to try again.
Our group is 4 older players and 1 newer player (2 ex PFS venture lieutenants).
I'll point out that prerequisites for Background skill feats explicitly do not need to be met. (And indeed, I had proceeded assuming this wasn't the case.)
I'm not sure what you mean about 'poison use' for the alchemist, given no class needs to have that anymore.
"How dumb it is to get to drink 1 potion a day": I assume your group consistently dumps Cha?
Resting with a Con mod of 0: "After your rest, you regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1) times your level" is already in the book.
Interesting thing I see constantly coming up: Why is it generally assumed that alchemists should be using bombs every single action? Why does it seem to be generally expected that PF1 alchemists go from ~5 bombs to infinite (and also should have complete splash control)?
I know dropping a hand from a two-handed weapon was mentioned consistently as "part of whatever other action you're taking" beforehand, so it should only be two actions. Granted they've clarified it since then.
in order:
been addressed upthread, but i appreciate it.rogues get poison use though, if no class needs to have that anymore, why do they have it? and a good chunk of the alchemical items list is poisons--not being able to use contact poisons without subjecting yourself to them seems like something the one class who makes them on the reg would know how to do, one would think.
with how stat generation works in 2e, you generally don't have the point boosts to throw at cha as a non-cha class, because you still need decent dex (for AC as heavier armor is needlessly punishing--and expensive at early levels), and con (for HP because enemies hit often and hit like trucks), and whatever your class' actual key stat is. you're generally "dumping" (keeping at 10) at least 2 stats now.
didnt notice that, that's good to hear.
because it's the alchemist's One Shiny Thing, the identifying feature of their class--they specifically get an ability to craft on-demand specifically to imply that kind of playstyle. they're certainly not suited for other playstyles either, as their weapon and armor proficiencies are nonexistent, so what decent alternative do they have exactly to using alchemical items?
i hadnt seen any comments to that effect, could you posts a source for it? much appreciated to know that though.
Can you reference which rogue thing you're referring to? The only one I recall is Poison Weapon, which (though it'd be good to have for the alchemist) is more an action economy thing.
I'd argue that especially early on, being able to reliably use potions is just as important as +1 Fort and +1 HP. CHA is definitely nowhere near the bottom of important stats right now, which (given how often it was dumped - I think one player literally dumped it to 7 on every character that wasn't an oracle because of how irrelevant it was in 1E) is a welcome change.
Alchemists do at the very least have simple weapons, more depending on ancestry, and the simple weapons are decent enough. This is about on the same level as a cleric without a martial favoured weapon.
It was referenced by devs when that was first a controversy, but they cleaned it up by slotting it into Drop.
poison weapon (rogue 4) was the one that i was referring to, yes.
poison weapon applies to contact poisons (simply that you apply it to the weapon with the action, and even specifically includes contact poisons as a viable option to use), while contact poisons have the "contact poisons are infeasible to apply to a creature via a weapon attack due to the logistics of delivering them without poisoning yourself." line in their effect description.
which actually raises the question: how exactly is it logistically infeasible to apply and use a contact poison without poisoning yourself usually? you literally just wear gloves. or don't stab yourself with your own weapon. neither involves any sort of major hoop-jumping, so how is it even slightly a logistical challenge, even if you have to slather it on?
edit: clarity